On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 23:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:43:20 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | > The only reason certain arch teams are considered a bottleneck is > | > because they do real testing. As opposed to x86 or ppc, where > | > packages which won't even unpack get marked stable... > | > | You can't help yourself, can you? You have to have a pop at > | someone :( > > It's the truth, it's a problem and it needs fixing. >
And I am sure everybody know why it was not a problem before, but is now. You have you wish, we are working on it, and you had your chance at trolling, but for the love of all, stop it if its not something constructive that needs adding. > | It's impossible for an arch team to keep pace with the rate of change > | in the tree and do adequate testing too. No arch team is currently > | big enough. Arch teams are always going to lag behind what package > | maintainers do. It's a simple numbers game. > | > | There are only two arch teams with 20 or more members (amd64 and ppc), > | as of 22:30 BST today. They have to deal with the output of approx > | 155 herds, plus countless changes that don't go through herds in the > | first place. The numbers speak for themselves. Arch teams are > | bottlenecks. Until the numbers change, that won't change. > > You want numbers? > > A total of 31 ebuilds seems outdated on sparc > A total of 72 ebuilds seems outdated on x86 > > A total of 3634 packages are keyworded on sparc > A total of 7793 packages are keyworded on x86 > > Real numbers. Not guesswork based upon misconceptions. > Which is about two times more outdated packages on x86 than sparc, and with the amount keyworded on x86 being about twice that of sparc, it really seems to me like the ratio is fairly the same, and both are in the same boat with regards to whatever the numbers had to prove? -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
